[Q3] AUD Study Group 2014 - Page 52

Viewing 15 replies - 766 through 780 (of 1,389 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #592914
    Gabe
    Participant

    Quick question: let's say a lawyer refuses to respond to audit inquiry, would this be considered a scope limitation? I remember reading somewhere that it wasn't because it wasn't management's fault. Any help?

    CPA, CFE
    CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

    #592915
    Pumpkins
    Member

    Hi Gabe.

    I've seen similar questions- If a lawyer refuses to respond to an Auditor's inquiry, the auditor should attempt to perform other procedures to gain comfort around litigations, claims, and assessments.

    However, if the auditor still cannot gain sufficient, appropriate evidence to support the assertions in this area, they won't be able to express an opinion- therefore, I think it would be a scope limitation even if it's not management's fault.

    AUD- 93
    BEC- 81
    FAR- 1/26/2015
    REG- TBD

    CIA Exams Passed in March, 2014

    #592916
    Pumpkins
    Member

    To clarify- I think they could also express a qualified opinion and put the LCA area as the “Except for” in the basis of the qualified opinion paragraph.

    AUD- 93
    BEC- 81
    FAR- 1/26/2015
    REG- TBD

    CIA Exams Passed in March, 2014

    #592917
    Gabe
    Participant

    So qualified or disclaimer?

    CPA, CFE
    CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

    #592918
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Hey guys,

    Currently in the last 2 1/2 weeks of Reg (taking the 25th) then I will be starting AUD with a test date of the 8/29..

    In the groups opinion, do you guys think 5 weeks of 20-25 hours per week will be enough to lock this bad boy up?

    Thanks in advance for the insight, and good luck to those testing soon! 🙂

    #592919
    BEACPA
    Participant

    Gabe,

    A lawyer's refusal to furnish the information requested in an inquiry letter either in writing or orally would be a limitation on the scope of the audit sufficient to preclude an unqualified opinion. Now, as far as qualified or disclaimer, that just depends on the importance of the omitted procedure(s) to his or her ability to form an opinion on the financial statements being audited. This assessment will be affected by the nature and magnitude of the potential effects of the matters in question and by their significance to the financial statements. If the potential effects relate to many financial statement items, (which in this case I believe it would) this significance is likely to be greater than if only a limited number of items is involved.

    If this was in a question, I believe they'd state whether it is material or pervasive, allowing you to deem it as qualified or disclaim respectively. Hope this helps.

    FAR - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God!
    AUD - 7/5/14 PASS Praise be to God!
    BEC - 11/29/14PASS Praise be to God!
    REG - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God!

    #592920
    Portia
    Member

    Hey All,

    RE: Ninja MCQ Question #: 1329 Category: 6A5 Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (IFAC)

    Can someone explain why “structural threat” is included in the list of correct answers? Below is the question with the response:

    Under the IESBA Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants, threats to the fundamental principles are to be identified so that safeguards can be applied. Potential threats identified include all of the following except:

    A. self-interest threats.

    B. self-review threats.

    Incorrect C. structural threats.

    D. All of the answer choices are threats identified in the Code of Ethics.

    You answered C. The correct answer is D.

    The International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants identifies five potential threats to the fundamental principles: self-interest, self-review, advocacy, familiarity, and intimidation threats. Once identified, safeguards are to be applied so that the principles are not compromised. Examples of safeguards are provided in Part B and C of the Code of Ethics.

    So, “structural threat” is not listed in the answer. I thought maybe “structural threat” is part of the definition of one of the five threats, but the reference did not have detail.

    Can someone clarify the answer for me or is this possibly an error in the Ninja MCQ?

    #592921
    BEACPA
    Participant

    Portia,

    This is clearly an error. I took the following straight from the regulations:

    (a) Self-interest threat – the threat that a financial or other interest will inappropriately

    influence the professional accountant’s judgment or behavior;

    (b) Self-review threat – the threat that a professional accountant will not appropriately

    evaluate the results of a previous judgment made or service performed by the

    professional accountant, or by another individual within the professional

    accountant’s firm or employing organization, on which the accountant will rely

    when forming a judgment as part of providing a current service;

    (c) Advocacy threat – the threat that a professional accountant will promote a client’s

    or employer’s position to the point that the professional accountant’s objectivity is

    compromised;

    (d) Familiarity threat – the threat that due to a long or close relationship with a client

    or employer, a professional accountant will be too sympathetic to their interests or

    too accepting of their work; and

    (e) Intimidation threat – the threat that a professional accountant will be deterred from

    acting objectively because of actual or perceived pressures, including attempts to

    exercise undue influence over the professional accountant.

    See https://www.ifac.org/sites/default/files/meetings/files/4320.pdf

    Paragraph 100.13

    FAR - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God!
    AUD - 7/5/14 PASS Praise be to God!
    BEC - 11/29/14PASS Praise be to God!
    REG - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God!

    #592922
    Portia
    Member

    Hey BEACPA,

    Thank you for your quick reply.

    My AUD exam is next Tuesday and I am getting a bit anxious and as a result my self confidence is affected. Thank you for relieving my misery.

    Portia

    #592923
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Ok, I've got similar to Gabe's question. What if predecessor refuses providing documentation to successor auditor. What is successor auditor supposed to do in this case, no “ifs” , problem does not say how material it is. Can it be disclaimer opinion, withdrawals, reassessing the risk or anything else?

    #592924
    Gabe
    Participant

    Hello all,

    Just returned from audit exam (#2 for me). Definitely harder MCQs than the last time, which I am taking as a good sign. The questions seemed to be more detail oriented and focused on particular engagement details, rather than “big picture” stuff.

    Sims were ok. Found the research question and a few sims in the AL. Had a few JE sims, which I was expecting. As an auditor you are expected to make JE's if a client needs them, so it is definitely not out of the realm of the audit material. Other than that, long wait until the 4th for us non NASBA states!

    CPA, CFE
    CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

    #592925
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I don't know how you guys are doing it. I had no problem studying REG for a month, but this past week of AUD has been hell.

    No numbers. Pure Memorization. Dry. Miserable.

    Any tips?

    #592926
    NYCaccountant
    Participant

    Anybody try the 2014 released questions? I felt with exception of 2-3, they were not difficult.

    FAR - 93
    REG - 87
    BEC - 84!!!!
    AUD - 99!!!!!! CPA exam complete.

    #592927
    BEACPA
    Participant

    NYCaccountant,

    I don't have an answer to your question. However, could you be so kind to tell me where I could access the 2014 released questions that you referred to? Thank you in advance!

    Cheers,

    BEACPA

    FAR - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God!
    AUD - 7/5/14 PASS Praise be to God!
    BEC - 11/29/14PASS Praise be to God!
    REG - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God!

    #592928
    BEACPA
    Participant

    CPA_NY,

    The auditor wouldn't have reason to withdraw in this case. If you weren't given the materiality, then I'd been inclined to go with a qualified opinion because I believe this is the opinion given if managment refuses to allow you a legal rep letter. Does anyone else have any thoughts. Hope you find what you're looking for CPA_NY. Good Luck!

    Cheers,

    FAR - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God!
    AUD - 7/5/14 PASS Praise be to God!
    BEC - 11/29/14PASS Praise be to God!
    REG - 2/28/14 PASS Praise be to God!

Viewing 15 replies - 766 through 780 (of 1,389 total)
  • The topic ‘[Q3] AUD Study Group 2014 - Page 52’ is closed to new replies.